The Parable of Talents

Though not a trained economist, Fr. Lejeune believed that there had to be a difference between investment and speculation. He thought that investment was good because wealth would be created. For him, speculation was equivalent to gambling. No wealth would be created in the process. There would only be a redistribution of wealth, but a winner takes all situation. The financial tsunami was a financial matter, not an economic matter. We now have a financial crisis, not an economic crisis. Production and consumption would continue. Speculation and gambling would stop. Economic analysts may not agree with him. Yet, as a man of eighties, he had gone through the Great Depression. He had seen the worst. Therefore, he was not too concerned about the present financial calamities.
In the readings today, we read the last chapter of the book of Proverbs. It was a song in praise of an ideal and capable wife. In a patriarchal society, this idealized woman is what a man could ever dream of. When he returns home, he will only meet a less than perfect woman of flesh and blood. Moreover, the Bible does not supply us with an idealized husband because the Bible was written by men, not women. Rarely could we be able to hear a woman's voice. We have very little clue what women expect of their husbands. There is no equality of genders even in modern society.
One of the reasons I prefer teaching RS in English is clearly demonstrated in the parable today (Matthew 25:14-30). In New Testament time, τάλαντον (Greek), talentum (Latin), talent (English) and 塔冷通 was a Greek currency. Today, "talent" in English means "a natural ability to be good at something". The parable may be the origin of this English word.
The parable runs like this. God has given his servants different number of talents. At the end of time, each servant reports to God what he has done with the given talents etc. The moral is that we should make good use of the talents God has given us. Do not bury it, waste it. If you do this parable in Chinese, you will miss the pun, the word-play. You will have to introduce another term such as 才幹、才能 to explain 塔冷通. The parable will become less forceful, less impressive because the currency "talent" is the key of the moral.
In an earlier parable (Matthew 20:1-16), a Roman currency δηναρίου (Greek), denario (Latin), denarius (English) and 德納 was used instead. The moral of this parable is "the last will be first, and the first last." (Matthew 20:16) The currency is not the key of the moral.
In the financial world, experts like to justify capitalism, to justify the exploitation of the poor and the subsequent polarization of the rich and the poor with "Matthew Effect":
For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away (Matthew 25:29).
The rich will become richer, the poor poorer. The Bible says so. Therefore, it is not wrong to exploit the poor!
This is a blatant abuse of the Bible, quoting texts out of context.
What is the "financial philosophy" of Christians? To make use of your money to help the poor and the needy.
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal,
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal (Matthew 6:19-20).
And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations (Luke 16:9).
I don't see how people can justify the exploitation of the poor with the so called "Matthew Effect".

My Master, may we not be lazy in making use of the talents You have given us. May our work bear fruits, thirtyfold, sixtyfold and a hundredfold. Amen.